Sub-brand to go here
Harvesting uncertainty: can we
maximise research outcomes
by exploiting the antifragile
properties of science?
Sergio Graziosi
www.ioe.ac.uk/ssru
This is a Seminar / Workshop
Part one:
Brief explanations of the concepts. Antifragility
applied to Research and Social Science
Part two:
Practical tinkering using the antifragility
concept.
2
Antifragility? What is this about?
Serendipity
Does science rely on serendipity?
Yes and No
Science relies on the convexity of
its payoff function.
Also known as Antifagility.
Photo © CLCase
from http://smccd.edu/accounts/case/antibiotics.html
3
Nassim Nicholas Taleb
•The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable
•Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder
Understanding is a poor substitute for convexity
(antifragility)
http://www.edge.org/conversation/understanding-is-a-poor-substitute-for-convexity-antifragility
The antifragile is the exact opposite of the fragile which can be
defined as hating disorder. A coffee cup is fragile because it wants
tranquillity and a low volatility environment, the antifragile wants the
opposite: high volatility increases its welfare.
4
Antifragility? Does it even exist?
Domain
FRAGILE
ROBUST
ANTIFRAGILE
Transport
Racing car
Tank, 4x4
Horse
Transport in London
Train
Bus
Bicycle
Market (profit)
Stock exchange
Supermarket
Souk
Knowledge
Science book
Journal
Wiki
Work
Employee
Employer
Freelance
Reputation
Head Teacher
Civil servant
Commentator
5
Optionality makes science antifragile
Discard
Keep!
Linear
payoff
function
Convex
payoff
function
6
Knowledge-based research under high uncertainty
Convex trial and
error (antifragile)
Pure knowledge (no
convex tinkering)
Nonconvex trial and
error (pure chance)
7
Pure Chance
Convex Research
8
Pure Knowledge
Seven rules of antifragility in research
1. Convexity is easier to attain than knowledge. You can lower the cost of unsuccessful
trials.
2. Convex strategies can be exploited by multiplying attempts.
If failures are
cheap, the more things you try, the better: you might get the JackPot.
3. Optionality is good. A rigid, long-lasting protocol reduces your options, (too much) planning
under uncertainty reduces convexity.
4. Single humans are good at harvesting opportunities. Even a solid research
project can be a restrictive plan. A solid researcher will change plans to follow opportunities.
5. Theory is born from (convex) practice more often than the reverse.
Big
discoveries are frequently the result of tinkering and luck (serendipity), theory then follows and
explains.
6. Premium for simplicity (less-is-more). A complex explanation does not in itself add
value, but may be rewarded as ‘good research’ independently from its usefulness.
7. Optionality depends of knowledge of negative and neutral results. The via
negativa is effective, all failed attempts should be known and documented.
9
Is this it? You knew it already, right?
Sure you did, but are we sure we grasp all consequences?
Central Economic planning (-) Vs. Personal initiative (+) Vs. Big Corporations (--)
Is it worth transforming our vision of policy making?
Should we see the aim of policy making as: strive to generate antifragile
systems?
Can we make our research less fragile?
Minimal take home message: the less you know, the bigger the advantage
provided by additional options. Or: the more you know, the less harm is done by a
rigid and long lasting research roadmap.
Any questions?
10
1. Can you imagine how to promote antifragile research with funders and policy makers? How about antifragile
interventions?
2. Results dissemination: does antifragility dictate it as an ethical requirement? Does it harm the original author as
much as it benefits the community (or vice-versa)?
3. Can you make an argument in favour of immigration based on the antifragile concept? Will anybody buy it?
4. Imagine you have won three research grants: one is big, will require 2 years of full time work for the whole team
(option A). The other two can be carried on simultaneously and will both finish in 2 years (option B). Both options
seem equally good. Does antifragility give you a reason to tip one way or the other? Why? Is it intuitive?
5. Systematic Reviews: how do they influence convexity? Does the same effect apply to policy making and
research?
6. Can you think of ways of making interventions antifragile? That is, design them in such a way that unforeseen
circumstances are likely to maximise the benefit? (Hint: optionality needs to be built-in)
7. Does the “tinkering with optionality” approach deny the rational and methodical side of research? What about
methodically measuring outcomes?
8. “What Works” disseminations centres are good, would “What doesn’t work” centres be even better?
9. Would you back a grant request that is designed exclusively from antifragile principles and ignores theoretical
knowledge? Why?
10. When designing a research project, are there ways that would allow injecting optionality into it so to maximise the
antifragility of the project?
11. If Social Sciences deal with human beings, and single individuals are good at harvesting unforeseen
opportunities, shouldn’t interventions be designed to exploit this quality? Why? Can you imagine how?
12. Can you see how I’ve tried to inject antifragility into this seminar/workshop?
13. Should we advocate the removal of all top-down directives, and substitute them with solid reporting (regular and
rigorous outcomes assessment)? Isn’t this a top-down directive in itself?
14. Would you back a grant request that is based on solid theoretical knowledge but is clearly fragile? Why?
15. Does public engagement in Systematic Reviews and/or Policy making affect the Review or Policy fragility? Why?
11
Social Science Research Unit
Institute of Education
University of London
18 Woburn Square
London WC1H 0NR
Tel +44 (0)20 7612 6397
Fax +44 (0)20 7612 6400
Email ssru@ioe.ac.uk
Web www.ioe.ac.uk/ssru